amj international experience

8/13/2019 AMJ International Experience

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amj-international-experience 1/17

AN INTEGRATIVE VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

RIKI TAKEUCHIHong Kong University of Science & Technology

PAUL E. TESLUKUniversity of Maryland

SEOKHWA YUNMontclair State University

DAVID P. LEPAKRutgers University

Integrating multiple theoretical perspectives, we differentiated international experi-ence into current and past experience. In addition, we organized past internationalexperience along two dimensions: domain (work/travel) and cultural specificity (U.S./ non-U.S.). We examined the effects of expatriates’ current assignment experience and

past international experience on cross-cultural adjustment. The results indicate thatpast international experience moderates the relationship between current assignmenttenure and general and work adjustment and also that general and work adjustmentdirectly affect expatriates’ early return intentions.

International work experience has gained in-creasing significance and is widely recognized as avital asset (e.g., Carpenter, Sanders, & Gregersen,2001; Sambharya, 1996) and as a potential source of competitive advantage (Spreitzer, McCall, & Ma-honey, 1997) for multinational companies. Forfirms competing in the global marketplace and for

aspiring executives developing their careers, inter-national assignments constitute an important set of work experiences. Indeed, international work expe-rience is one of the major requirements for promo-tion to higher-level managerial positions (Carpen-ter et al., 2001; Daily, Certo, & Dalton, 2000), andCEOs with longer international experience are of-ten more highly sought after than those who lackextensive international experience (Daily et al., 2000).

Yet it is difficult for individuals to be successfulduring international assignments, and their failurehas considerable costs for their organizations. For

example, the cost associated with the early returnof a typical expatriate is estimated to range from$250,000 to $1.25 million (Mervosh & McClenahen,

1997). In addition, organizations that fail to fullydevelop needed international experience amongmanagers face potential inability to carry out globalstrategic initiatives. Insufficient international expe-rience may also be associated with suboptimal pro-ductivity of foreign subsidiaries, lost opportunitiesfor creating or penetrating markets, and difficulties

building and maintaining relationships with hostcountry stakeholders (Dowling, Welch, & Schuler,1999). Furthermore, expatriate failure also bearsconsiderable costs for managers, including loss of self-esteem, self-confidence, and reputation, aswell as reduced motivation and willingness to sup-port other expatriates (e.g., as a mentor) (Dowling etal., 1999). An unsuccessful international assign-ment may also impair a manager’s ability to learnand develop the competencies needed by his or herorganization and, thus, to attain future expatriatepositions.

The inability of expatriates to successfully adjustto foreign environments has been cited as one of themost frequent reasons for unsuccessful overseasassignments (e.g., Caligiuri, 2000; Shaffer & Harri-son, 1998). As a result, considerable attention has

been devoted to identifying the factors that influ-ence expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment and thesuccessful completion of their assignments (e.g.,Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991; Shaffer & Har-rison, 1998). Though the specific focus of previousstudies varies, one common theme is that interna-tional experience is a critical factor influencing

We are very grateful for the tremendous assistanceprovided by Kazuo Takeuchi, Keiko Takeuchi, and JohnHannon throughout the survey translation and data col-lection stages of this research. We would also like toshow our appreciation for the insightful comments onearlier versions of this article provided by four anony-mous reviewers and the editor of this journal, as well as

by Michele Gelfand and Carl Maertz.

Academy of Management Journal

2005, Vol. 48, No. 1, 85–100.

85



expatriate adjustment, which, in turn, is associatedwith assignment completion (cf. Black et al., 1991;Parker & McEvoy, 1993). However, several concep-tual and operational limitations on studying typesand influences of international experience remain.These limitations might be due to the lack of atheoretical and integrative framework in conceptu-

alizing international experiences.The main objective of this study was to develop

and examine hypotheses relating to the influence of different types of experience abroad (international experience) on expatriate adjustment and early re-turn intentions by integrating research on work ex-perience (e.g., Quinones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995;Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998), work-family conflict (e.g.,Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Major, Klein, & Ehrhart,2002), time (e.g., Ancona, Okhuysen, & Perlow,2001; Goodman, Lawrence, Ancona, & Tushman,2001), and adjustment (e.g., Selmer, 2002). First,

we extended Selmer’s (2002) work by differentiat-ing international experiences into current and pastones. Second, we distinguished among prior inter-national experiences using two dimensions that ad-dress their quality: (1) domain and (2) culturalspecificity. Using the first dimension, we classifiedexperiences as occurring in the work or the non-work domain. Using the second, we classified eachexperiment into culture-specific and nonspecific(culture-general) components, which could be ei-ther work-related or non-work-related. Third, weexamined the influence of prior international expe-riences by focusing on both length- and amount-

based conceptualizations of these experiences (cf.Quinones et al., 1995; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998).Finally, we examined the moderating effects of pre-vious international experiences on the relation-ships between current experiences and sociocul-tural adjustment.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In the international context, sociocultural adjust-ment refers to an individual’s ability to adapt to aforeign environment (Selmer, 2002) and can be

viewed as the degree of ease (or difficulty) employ-ees have with various aspects of an overseas assign-ment (e.g., Black, 1988; Black et al., 1991). Taking awork-family conflict perspective, we identify two

broad domains, work and nonwork, in which expa-triates need to adjust if they are to function effec-tively in a foreign environment. General adjust-ment refers to an individual’s psychologicalcomfort, familiarity, and ease regarding features of the general, nonwork environment, such as food,housing, climate, and living conditions. Work ad-justment refers to an individual’s psychological

comfort with various aspects of work, such as su-pervisory and job responsibilities (Black, 1988;Black & Stephens, 1989; Black & Gregersen, 1991a,1991b).

Various studies have indicated a significant rela-tionship between adjustment and expatriates’ in-tentions to return to their home countries early,

before their international assignments are com-pleted (Black & Stephens, 1989; Shaffer & Harrison,1998). However, the influences of prior interna-tional experience on cross-cultural adjustmenthave yet to be fully examined. When prior interna-tional experience has been analyzed, it has typi-cally been included as a background or a controlvariable (e.g., Black, 1988; Black & Gregersen,1991a; Parker & McEvoy, 1993; Shaffer & Harrison,1998). With a few exceptions (e.g., Black, 1988;Parker & McEvoy, 1993; Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley,1999), most of those studies have generally shown

a positive but nonsignificant relationship betweenprior international work experience and adjustment.Moreover, the studies that have supported this

link have presented inconsistent findings. For in-stance, Black (1988) found a significantly positiverelationship between length of international workexperience and work adjustment. Parker andMcEvoy (1993) found a positive relationship be-tween international living experience and generaladjustment, but not between such experience andwork adjustment. Shaffer and colleagues (1999) didnot find a relationship between previous interna-tional work experience and general or work adjust-ment. As these equivocal findings imply, there is aneed for more theoretical development and exami-nation of international experience and its relation-ships to expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment.

A Model of International Experience andExpatriate Adjustment

International experience is a multidimensionalconcept that varies along several dimensions. Ingeneral, we follow prior research on work-familyconflict (e.g., Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Frone,

Russell, & Cooper, 1992) that has focused on twodomains, work and nonwork. We followed thatprior research approach by (1) differentiating pre-vious international experiences into work and non-work ones and (2) viewing general and work adjust-ment as respectively representing the nonwork andwork domains. Figure 1 presents our researchmodel.

First, it is important to recognize that experi-ences have a time component (e.g., Goodman et al.,2001; Shaffer et al., 1999). At any given time, anexperience can be conceptualized as one that has

86 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal



occurred in the past, is currently occurring, or willoccur in the future (e.g., Goodman et al., 2001).Here, we focus on past and present experiences

because these are more likely to influence employ-ees’ current attitudes and behaviors than are antic-ipated experiences. Second, extending research onwork experience (e.g., Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998) andwork-family conflict (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell,1985), we conceptualized past international expe-riences as relating to either work or nonwork.Third, individuals differ in the extent of their coun-try-specific experiences (Hofstede, 1980). Prior in-ternational experience in the same culture as theone where an expatriate is currently assigned is

likely to be most valuable in his or her learningcultural values and norms. Hence, we differenti-ated prior international experience further as eithercountry-specific or general. In the following sec-tions we discuss the influence of current assign-ment experience and prior international experienceon expatriate adjustment.

Current Assignment Tenure

The logic arguing for a positive relationship be-tween the length of time in a current work assign-

ment (current assignment tenure) and cross-cul-tural adjustment is relatively straightforward.When expatriates initially arrive in the host coun-try, they face considerable uncertainty about manydifferent aspects of both life and work. However,over time, they are likely to acquire informationthat enables them to function more effectively inthe new environment. With prolonged exposure tothe nuances of the host culture, expatriates arelikely to become more familiar with the generalsurroundings and find more suitable standards (forinstance, less expensive housing, a safer neighbor-hood, better knowledge of the transportation sys-tems) and become better adjusted.

With regard to work-related adjustment, timespent in an assignment is also important. Longertenure increases opportunities for expatriates tolearn appropriate work behaviors through direct aswell as vicarious modeling (Bandura, 1997). In ad-dition, an extended period of time may be required

before expatriates are fully accepted by their peersand develop work relationship with their peers (cf.Hofstede, 1980). Consistently with existing re-search, we anticipate that the length of a currentassignment tenure is associated with an enhancedunderstanding of the culture of a host country and

FIGURE 1Hypothesized Model of International Experience

2005 87Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun, and Lepak



an increased ability to adapt behaviors to fit withthose appropriate to the host country. More specif-ically, we expect current assignment tenure to beassociated positively with both general and workadjustment.

The Influence of Prior International ExperiencesWhen examining the interplay between current

and prior international experience, Selmer (2002)explored the possibility that prior international ex-perience moderated the relationship between cur-rent assignment tenure and adjustment, studyingWestern expatriates in Hong Kong. Using split-group analysis, he found that prior Asian experi-ence among the novice group (less than one year ona foreign assignment) was significant, but prior in-ternational experience outside Asia was not signif-icant for either group. Although Selmer did not

divide prior experience into travel and work epi-sodes or into culture-specific and culture-generalcomponents, his study provides initial support formoderation by previous international experience.

The types of prior international experience thatexpatriates possess are also likely to influence theiradjustment to a host country. Logically, greater pastexperience, be it more numerous episodes or a sin-gle lengthy episode, should be associated withhigher general and work adjustment, as past expe-rience provides expatriates with direct opportuni-ties to learn a variety of skills. Intercultural com-munication, relocation, and cognitive skills will begained, all of which should have a positive influ-ence on the expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment(Black et al, 1991; Selmer, 2002; Shaffer et al.,1999). However, existing research presents incon-sistent findings regarding the specific nature of these relationships.

Viewing international experience from a knowl-edge transfer perspective (Davenport & Prusak,1998) may help clarify these inconsistencies. Re-search in the area of knowledge transfer suggeststhat learning within a domain is different fromtransferring that knowledge across domains (Klac-

zynski, 1993) or over time (Phye, 1990). The moreestablished the routines or the schemata that indi-viduals acquire from direct experience as well asvicarious observation, the more beneficial thesewill be in subsequent overseas experiences. Yet,according to social learning theory (e.g., Bandura,1997), “A great deal of psychological modeling oc-curs in everyday association networks” (Bandura,1997: 92), and the people with whom one regularlyassociates determine the content of learning. Whenindividuals visit foreign countries, the people thatthey observe the most tend to be the ones with

whom they interact more frequently in everydayencounters. As a result, the contents of learning—that is, the routines or the schemata appropriate forfunctioning in the culture—tend to be predomi-nantly domain specific. In this regard, prior inter-national nonwork experiences would logically behelpful for creating and developing routines and

schemata that benefit adjustment to a general envi-ronment (that is, general adjustment), but thisknowledge and familiarity may not necessarilytranslate to an expatriate’s work environment (thatis, work adjustment).

Work on knowledge transfer by Barnett and Ceci(2002) as well as by others (e.g., Hinds, Patterson, &Pfeffer, 2001; Klaczynski, 1993; Phye, 1989, 1990)also supports this domain specificity argument. Ac-cording to this research, transfer across differentknowledge domains, time periods, and/or physicaland social contexts, which Barnett and Ceci called

“far transfer,” is more difficult to achieve thantransfer within domains, time periods, and/or sim-ilar physical and social contexts, labeled “neartransfer.” In studying cognitive transfer (“the appli-cation of previously demonstrated knowledge to adifferent problem in the same context or to a dif-ferent problem in a different context” [Phye, 1990:826]), Phye (1989, 1990) demonstrated that transfer

based on memory is inferior to on-line transfer (near transfer; Barnett & Ceci, 2002) in that across-domain transfer is more likely to occur when thephysical context remains the same and the time lagis negligible (such as, for instance, in the case of current experience). Moreover, when transfer ismemory-based (the time lag is considerable), asoccurs, for instance, in the case of past experience,within-domain transfer is more likely because atleast the physical context remains the same (Bar-nett & Ceci, 2002).

Taking these arguments in combination, we positthat a major difference between current and priorinternational experience is that transfer across do-mains is more likely to occur with current experi-ence (near transfer); that is, current assignment ten-ure has a positive relationship with general and

work adjustment. In contrast, the influence of priorinternational experience (far transfer) is likely to belimited to transfer within domains because of thedifferences in the knowledge domain and the phys-ical and social contexts in which the transfer has tooccur and because of the temporal separation be-tween the learning and the transfer (to the currentsituation). Thus, we expect current experience toinfluence general and work adjustment but expectthe moderating effects of prior experience to bedomain specific unless the cultural setting of cur-rent and prior experience is the same (prior expe-




rience within a given culture is more likely to betransferable over time; Phye [1989, 1990]). In thefollowing sections, we discuss the hypothesizedmoderating effects of different types of prior inter-national experience on the relationship betweencurrent experience and adjustment.

Hypotheses

Prior international nonwork-related experi-ence. Previous international nonwork experiencessuch as traveling and studying are likely to be as-sociated with the extent to which expatriates adjustto foreign cultures. When people travel to foreigncountries, they learn the behaviors, customs, andnorms of those cultures through direct experienceor through observation of the host nationals’ behav-iors (Bandura, 1997). Moreover, individuals withextensive experience in other cultures are alsolikely to have developed comprehensive cognitive

frameworks or templates known as schemata,which are defined as sets of cognitions about peo-ple, roles, or events that govern social behavior(e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 1984) that aid adaptation tonovel environments.

In this regard, expatriates with more numerous orlonger prior international experiences are likely todevelop more comprehensive cognitive schematathan those with fewer or shorter prior internationalexperiences. These schemata can help expatriatesadjust to the foreign culture. However, the expatri-ates with less prior international experience lack

the comprehensive schemata. Thus, expatriateswith more prior international experience can use

both current experience and prior experience,while expatriates with less prior experience mainlyrely on current experience. In other words, theinfluence of current assignment tenure is expectedto be more significant for those less or shorter pre-vious nonwork international experience, less sig-nificant for those with more or longer previousnonwork international experience. Research exam-ining the extent of prior international experience(e.g., Black, 1988; Parker & McEvoy, 1993; Shaffer &Harrison, 1998) has generally indicated a small,positive (but nonsignificant) association with ad-justment. Given these previous findings, we treatednumber and length as likely to have similar mod-erating effects, although each is a distinct measureof the extent of international experience.

Hypothesis 1. On the one hand, prior interna-tional nonwork experience moderates the rela-tionship between current assignment tenureand general adjustment to a host country insuch a way that current assignment tenure hasless influence on general adjustment when ex-

patriates have more and longer prior interna-tional nonwork experience. On the other hand,current assignment tenure has more influenceon general adjustment when expatriates haveless and shorter prior international nonwork experience.

Prior international work-related experience. Itis well established that companies in different cul-tures have different ways of conducting business(Hofstede, 1980). For example, collectivistic cul-tures, such as the cultures of most Asian countries,emphasize a communication style in which “mostof the information is either in the physical contextor internalized in the person” (Hall, 1976: 79),whereas individualistic cultures, such as those of the United States, Germany, Scandinavia, andSwitzerland, use a “low-context” communicationstyle (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). Expatri-ates from a culture with a low-context communica-tion style would have difficulty adjusting to a cul-ture with a high-context communication style, andvice versa (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1985). Ex-patriates might acquire this valuable knowledgeabout the subtle, but critical, inner workings of theforeign culture through prior international workexperience. This knowledge may help form thecompetencies expatriates need to cope with theiruncertain and complex work environments, there-

by facilitating successful adjustment to new set-tings (Kanungo & Misra, 1992) or enabling the for-mation of schemata for dealing with unfamiliar

situations. Thus, we expected the moderating ef-fects of prior international work experience to bedomain specific. The benefits of this experiencewill be limited to the work domain, but prior inter-national work experience will act as a buffer. Thosewith longer or more experiences will have a grad-ual adjustment process, whereas those with shorteror fewer experiences will have a more pronouncedadjustment process.

Hypothesis 2. Prior international work experi-ence moderates the relationship between cur-rent assignment tenure and work adjustment in such a way that current assignment tenurehas less influence on work adjustment whenexpatriates have more and longer prior inter-national work experience. On the other hand,current assignment tenure has more influenceon work adjustment when expatriates have lessand shorter prior international work experience.

Prior international culture-specific experience.Thus far, we have discussed the influence of

previous international experience in general. How-ever, it can be argued that prior international expe-




rience in a particular country eases current socio-cultural adjustment to that country becauseknowledge has contextualized components (Bha-gat, Kedia, Harveston, & Triandis, 2002). Reassign-ment to a similar culture (or cultures) is morestressful than reassignment to the same country.When expatriates have experience working or trav-

eling in the United States, for example, they arelikely to have been exposed to such cultural valuesand norms as being assertive and independent (cf.Hofstede, 1980). Given that each culture providesunique adaptation challenges in both work andnonwork realms (cf. Hofstede, 1980), culture-spe-cific experiences should have a positive influence.

In addition, the uniform physical context (a sin-gle country) means that knowledge transfer will benear transfer (Barnett & Ceci, 2002), not far transfer.The likelihood of transfer across domains is thusincreased (cf. Bhagat et al., 2002). Specifically, we

expected both previous country-specific travel andprevious country-specific work experience to havepositive moderating effects on the relationship be-tween current assignment tenure and adjustment in

both the nonwork and work domains because theprevious experience occurred in a highly similar, if not exactly the same, setting as experience in thecurrent assignment. Moreover, in keeping with therationale described earlier, we expected prior cul-tural experience to act as a substitute for currentexperience so that the influence of current assign-ment tenure on adjustment will be flatter for thosewith more or longer culture-specific experiences thanit will be for those with fewer or shorter culture-specific experiences. Therefore, we propose:

Hypothesis 3. Prior international culture-spe-cific work and nonwork experience moderatesthe relationship between current assignment tenure and general adjustment in such a way that current assignment tenure has less influ-ence on general adjustment when expatriateshave more and longer culture-specific prior in-ternational experience. On the other hand, cur-rent assignment tenure has more influence ongeneral adjustment when expatriates have lessand shorter culture-specific prior international experience.

Hypothesis 4. Prior international culture-specific work and nonwork experience moder-ates the relationship between current assign-ment tenure and work adjustment in such away that current assignment tenure has lessinfluence on work adjustment when expatri-ates have more and longer culture-specific prior international experience. On the other hand, current assignment tenure has more in-

fluence on work adjustment when expatriateshave less and shorter culture-specific prior in-ternational experience.

Cross-Cultural Adjustment and Premature ReturnIntentions

Anecdotal as well as theoretical studies that at-test to the importance of cross-cultural adjustmentto expatriate’s premature return abound. Given thatthe costs of premature return resulting from expa-triates’ unsuccessful adaptation to foreign culturesare very high (Mervosh & McClenahen, 1997), link-ing cross-cultural adjustment to expatriates’ inten-tions to prematurely terminate assignments is crit-ical. However, only a few studies have examined thisrelationship empirically (McEvoy & Parker, 1995).

When expatriates fail to adjust well to a foreignculture, every aspect of their lives becomes stress-ful. Even adaptable individuals are likely to en-

counter a period of intense stress (i.e., “cultureshock”; Adler, 1997). If successful adaptation to thenew environment never occurs, expatriates arelikely to be under high stress for a prolonged periodof time. Withdrawal behaviors, such as being ab-sent from work, leaving work early, and quittingthe job itself, are well-documented reactions tostress (e.g., Kahn & Byosiere, 1990). We expectedthat expatriates undergoing high stress would bemore likely to withdraw from their current assign-ments. One such withdrawal behavior would beexpressing a desire to leave an assignment before it

is officially slated to end. On the other hand, whenexpatriates are well adjusted to a foreign environ-ment, their stress level and their intentions to pre-maturely terminate their assignments are likely to

be lower. Therefore, we expected the following:

Hypothesis 5. General adjustment is negatively related to expatriates’ intentions to return early.

Hypothesis 6. Work adjustment is negatively related to expatriates’ intentions to return early.

METHODS

Sample and Procedures

As part of a larger project focusing on sociocul-tural adjustment issues for expatriates and theirspouses (Takeuchi, Yun, & Russell, 2002; Takeuchi,Yun, & Tesluk, 2002), surveys were mailed to 298

Japanese expatriates working in the United States.The director of a chapter of the Japan-AmericanSociety identified these individuals. The mailingincluded a cover letter from her, a cover letter fromthe researchers, and university-addressed, prepaidenvelopes with identification codes (to match re-sponses from different sources). Ten days later, the




researchers sent a reminder postcard to each expa-triate, which was followed by another surveypacket two weeks later for nonrespondents. Wereceived survey responses along with contact infor-mation for supervisors from 243 expatriates, attain-ing an overall response rate of 81.5 percent. For thespouse data, expatriates indicated in the survey if

they had spouses accompanying them to the UnitedStates. One hundred eighty-six respondents indi-cated that their spouses were available to fill outthe survey (28 respondents were either single ordivorced, and another 29 had spouses temporarilyout of the country). We collected data from thespouses using the same procedure as for the expa-triates. In short telephone interviews (about 10 min-utes each), the primary researcher obtained work ad-justment ratings from the supervisors the expatriatesnamed on their surveys. These phone interviewsyielded a 100 percent response rate. However, to keep

the phone interviews short, we did not obtain demo-graphic information from the supervisors.All of the expatriate respondents were male, and

most of them were married (88.5%). They averaged38.99 years of age (s.d. 7.68), ranging from 26 to61 years old. Most respondents’ highest level of education was a bachelor’s degree (65.6%). Forty-three percent worked in research and development,28.3 percent in administration, 18.7 percent inmanufacturing, and 9.2 percent in sales. The ma-jority of respondents (64%) had received predepar-ture training. Language training was the most com-mon type of training provided to the expatriates(38.9%). As a group, the surveyed expatriates hadtraveled to 37 different countries, including countriesin North and South America, Europe, the MiddleEast, and southeast Asia and had taken an averageof 1.56 trips each (s.d. 1.45). The expatriates hadworked in 36 different countries in North andSouth America, Europe, the Middle East, theformer Soviet Union, and southeast Asia, and theyhad been on 1.32 international assignments (s.d.

1.96) on average.

Measures

As in existing work history studies (e.g., Schmidt,Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986), respondents wereasked to identify the countries to which they hadmost recently traveled and the length of each trip;they were asked to identify each of their interna-tional work assignments prior to the current assign-ment by naming the country and the length; andthey were asked to identify study-abroad experi-ences prior to the current assignment. Respondentswere asked to provide these experiences in chrono-logical order, backward from the most recent to theleast recent (Schmidt et al., 1986). Because of space

constraints, we asked respondents to list only fivetravel-, ten work-, and three study-abroad experi-ences. These international work/travel historieswere used to derive the tenure and experience mea-sures explained in more detail below.

Current assignment tenure. Current assignmenttenure was measured as the number of months

since an expatriate had arrived in his current as-signment. Current assignment tenure averaged29.66 months (s.d. 22.57) but varied greatly, fromless than 1 month to over 112 months (nine yearsand 4 months).

Prior international nonwork experience. Fourvariables for previous international nonwork expe-rience were initially assessed. The first, the totallength of previous travel experience, was created

by summing each reported travel experience. Thesecond, the total number of prior travel experi-ences, was created by counting the number of travel

experiences listed. The third and fourth were thetotal length and number of previous internationalstudy experiences. However, only 16 expatriates(6.6%) indicated that they had studied abroad.Hence, this variable was dropped from subsequentanalyses and the measure included only prior in-ternational travel experiences. Note that for thelength-based and number-based measures of priorinternational travel experience, we treated U.S.nonwork experiences separately in order to clearlydifferentiate these culture-general components of experience from those culture-specific ones.

Prior international work experience. We as-sessed the total length of a respondent’s previousinternational work experience by summing monthsof reported previous international assignments.Moreover, the measure of the total number of priorinternational work experiences was created bycounting the number of work experiences listed.U.S. work experiences were again treated sepa-rately from these measures of prior internationalwork experience.

Prior international culture-specific experience.In order to examine the culture specificity of pre-vious international experience, we summed the

length of prior travel or work international experi-ence in the United States and counted the numberof U.S.-specific travel or work experiences. Lengthwas measured by summing months across all the U.S.travel or work experience an expatriate reported.1

1 Given that the experience variables were positivelyskewed, we subjected them to a square root transforma-tion to normalize them before standardizing to create theinteraction terms. After the analyses were repeated usingthe transformed variables, the findings were comparable




Cross-cultural adjustment. Cross-cultural ad-justment has been conceptualized as multidimen-sional (e.g., Black, 1988; Black & Stephens, 1989;Shaffer & Harrison, 1998). In the present study, weassessed general and work adjustment using theseven- and three-item general and work adjustmentscales developed by Black (1988) and colleagues

(Black & Stephens, 1989) to represent the nonworkand work domains, respectively. For example, oneitem asked expatriates to rate their own degree of adjustment to a number of specific general livingconditions (general adjustment) or specific job re-sponsibilities (work adjustment). Rating anchorsranged from “not adjusted very well” (1) to “verywell adjusted” (7).

In order to reduce the potential for commonsource bias, we used two different sources, eachfrom the most appropriate source for either generalor work adjustment to a new culture. Specifically,

expatriates rated themselves on their general ad-justment, and the supervisors most familiar withexpatriates rated their work adjustment. We alsoobtained spouses’ ratings of expatriates’ general ad-justment, which provided evidence of the conver-gent validity of the self-ratings of expatriates’ gen-eral adjustment (r .51, p .001, n 141). Tomaximize sample size and statistical power, weused only expatriates’ self-ratings for general ad-justment. The reliability of this seven-item scalewas .81. We used a phone interview to obtain theratings of work adjustment from superiors familiarwith the expatriates’ work, using the three items.Cronbach’s alpha for this variable was .81.

Intent to return early. Two items were used toassess expatriates’ intentions of quitting the assign-ment and returning home early. Initially, threeitems were included in the questionnaire: twoitems adapted from Black and Stephens (1989): “Idiscuss the possibility of returning home early withmy spouse” and “I will do anything to keep thisassignment for its expected duration” (reverse-coded) as well as an additional item developed forthis study: “I think about going home before theassignment is over.” However, we dropped the re-

verse-coded item from subsequent analyses be-cause of its poor factor “loading.” The remainingtwo items had a reliability of .81 and correlatedsignificantly (r .50, p .01) with the spousalassessment of the expatriates’ intentions to returnearly, which provided further evidence for the va-lidity of expatriate ratings of those intentions. Weused expatriates’ self-assessment of their intent to

return early with mean replacement to maximizethe sample size.2

Analytic Strategy

Given our interest in the moderating effects of prior international experiences and widely diver-

gent measurement units, we standardized all thevariables by a Z -score transformation to reduce thepotential for multicollinearity (e.g., Cohen & Co-hen, 1983). To test Hypotheses 1 through 4, weperformed two sets of moderated regression analy-ses: one for general and the other for work adjust-ment. In step 1, we included current assignmenttenure, which was followed by the prior interna-tional experience variables in step 2. In step 3, weincluded all the interaction terms simultaneously.To test Hypotheses 5 and 6, which posit negativerelationships between general and work adjust-

ment, and early return intention, we entered cur-rent assignment tenure in step 1, the prior interna-tional experience variables in step 2, all theinteraction terms in step 3, and general and workadjustment variables in step 4. In addition, to ex-plicate the moderating effects further, we plottedsignificant interactions at plus and minus one stan-dard deviation from the mean, following the proce-dures specified by Aiken and West (1991).

RESULTS

Means, standard deviations, and correlations are

depicted in Table 1. Unstandardized means andstandard deviations of the variables are listed forinformational purposes only because standardizedvariables are used in all the analyses except for thedependent variables. The directions of the correla-tions for all the experience variables were in theexpected direction.

Table 2 shows the results of the moderated re-gression analyses. Models 1 through 3 report theconstants and standardized coefficients (s) associ-ated with each individual step. Current assignmenttenure had positive relationships with both dimen-

sions of adjustment, as expected. Current assign-ment tenure was significantly and positively re-lated to both general adjustment ( .24, p .001)and work adjustment ( .25, p .001) in the finalmodel.

For the moderating hypotheses, the last step for

with those from the original analyses. Thus, we reportthe findings using nontransformed variables here.

2 We also tested the relationships between general andwork adjustment on early return intentions using “listwise”deletion, owing to concern regarding mean replacement of an item. The results were highly comparable. Therefore, wereport the results from the full sample here.




each regression indicates that the incremental vari-ance accounted for by the interaction terms wassignificant for both facets of adjustment. For gen-eral adjustment, the interaction terms explained 9percent additional variance over and above that

accounted for by the variables in previous steps(F 2.95, p .01). For work adjustment, theincremental variance accounted by the interactionterms was 6 percent (F 2.32, p .05).

For Hypothesis 1, which posits the moderatingeffect of prior nonwork international experience onthe relationship between current assignment tenureand general adjustment, the interaction term asso-ciated with total number of travel experiences wasonly marginally significant ( .20, p .10), butthe interaction term associated with the total lengthof travel experience was not ( .06, p .05).

Therefore, these results do not provide much sup-port for Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2 proposes a moderating effect of prior work international experience on the relation-ship between current assignment tenure and work

adjustment. The interaction term associated withtotal number of work experiences was not signifi-cant ( .05, p .05), which does not support thefirst part of this hypothesis. On the other hand, the

beta associated with current assignment tenure bytotal length of work experience interaction termhad a significant, negative ( .20, p .01)relationship to work adjustment. Figure 2a indi-cates that when expatriates had longer prior inter-national work experience, current assignment ten-ure had a weaker, positive effect, while it had astronger, positive effect for expatriates with less

TABLE 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlationsa

Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Current assignmenttenure

29.66 22.57

2. Previous

international travelexperiences:Number b

0.89 1.24 .01

3. Previousinternational travelexperiences: Length b

1.63 3.71 .17** .68***

4. Previousinternational workexperiences:Number b

0.64 1.50 .07 .10 .08

5. Previousinternational workexperiences: Length b

16.09 60.63 .00 .15* .08 .34***

6. Previous U.S. travelexperiences:

Number

0.54 0.69 .10 .04 .01 .01 .01

7. Previous U.S. travelexperiences: Length

1.21 2.53 .04 .09 .04 .10 .03 .57***

8. Previous U.S. workexperiences:Number

0.64 0.96 .10 .10 .07 .06 .15* .18** .13*

9. Previous U.S. workexperiences: Length

18.30 73.85 .08 .05 .02 .20** .01 .01 .03 .34***

10. General adjustment 4.93 0.85 .22*** .13* .11† .03 .03 .07 .14* .12†.03 (.81)

11. Work adjustment 4.65 1.03 .26*** .12† .13* .14* .09 .03 .18** .10 .03 .51*** (.81)12. Intent to return

early3.10 1.77 .13* .11†

.17** .01 .01 .02 .07 .10 .02* .46*** .37*** (.81)

a n 243; reliability coefficients are reported along the diagonal: Means and standard deviations reported here are for unstandardizedvariables.

b Previous international travel and work experience excludes culture-specific (U.S.) experience.† p .10* p .05

** p .01*** p .001Two-tailed tests.




international experience. In summary, the resultssupport the second part of Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 advocates the moderating effect of prior culture-specific international experience—that is, prior U.S. travel and work experience—ongeneral adjustment. The results indicate significanteffects for the interaction terms of current assign-ment tenure and total number of U.S. travel expe-riences ( .17, p .05), total length of U.S. travelexperiences ( .19, p .05), and total length of

U.S. work experiences ( .28, p .01). Theslopes for length-based prior U.S. travel and workexperience were similar, as Figures 2b and 2cshow. For expatriates with longer prior U.S. (cul-ture-specific) experience, be it travel or work expe-rience, current assignment tenure had a less posi-tive effect on adjustment than it did for those withshorter prior U.S. experience. This effect of length-

based prior international experience is similar tothe one obtained for length-based prior interna-

TABLE 2Results of Moderated Regression Analysis for Previous International Experiencea

Variable b

General Adjustment Work Adjustment

Model 1Model

2Model

3 Model 1Model

2Model

3

Intercept 4.93*** 4.93*** 4.96*** 4.64*** 4.64*** 4.65***

Step 1: Current experienceCurrent assignment tenure .22*** .21** .24*** .26*** .24*** .25***

Step 2: Previous international experienceTotal number of travel experiences .16† .04 .09 .08Total length of travel experiences .02 .14 .02 .06Total number of work experiences .01 .00 .08 .02Total length of work experiences .07 .08 .04 .08Total number of U.S. travel

experiences.12 .09 .22** .23**

Total length of U.S. travel experiences .05 .05 .13†.13

Total number of U.S. workexperiences

.06 .04 .06 .06

Total length of U.S. work experiences .14* .27** .09 .20*

Step 3: InteractionsCurrent assignment tenure total

number of travel experiences.20†

.10

Current assignment tenure totallength of travel experiences

.06 .12

Current assignment tenure totalnumber of work experiences

.03 .05

Current assignment tenure totallength of work experiences

.06 .20**

Current assignment tenure totalnumber of U.S. travel experiences

.17* .02

Current assignment tenure totallength of U.S. travel experiences

.19* .02

Current assignment tenure totalnumber of U.S. work experiences

.13† .15†

Current assignment tenure totallength of U.S. work experiences

.28** .15

Overall F 12.31*** 2.87** 3.01*** 17.17*** 4.17*** 3.40***R2 .05 .10 .19 .07 .14 .20Change in F 1.66 2.95** 2.34* 2.32*Change in R2 .05 .09 .07 .06

a n 243. Values are standardized estimates. b Standardized after Z -score transformation.

† p .10* p .05

** p .01*** p .001.Two-tailed tests.




tional work experience on work adjustment (for thesecond part of Hypothesis 2). Therefore, these re-sults support Hypothesis 3.

On the other hand, the graph depicting modera-tion by number of prior U.S. travel experiences(Figure 2d) was surprising and contrary to expec-tation. For this type of interaction, when expatri-ates had more prior culture-specific (U.S.) experi-ences, current assignment tenure had a strongereffect on adjustment than it did when expatriateshad fewer such experiences. This finding divergedfrom our expectation.

For Hypothesis 4, which proposes a moderatingeffect of prior culture-specific international (prior

U.S. travel and work) experience on work adjust-ment, the results did not provide much support.Only the interaction term associated with number-

based U.S. work experience was marginally signif-icant for work adjustment ( .25, p .1). Thus,Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Finally, for Hypotheses 5 and 6, which posit anegative effect of general and work adjustment onintentions to leave an assignment early, the resultswere consistent and supportive. When entered inthe fourth (the last) step, both adjustment variablestogether explained 18 percent of incremental vari-

ance above and beyond that accounted for by theprevious three steps (F 27.96, p .001). Generaladjustment had a negative beta coefficient of .38( p .001), while that for work adjustment was.17 ( p .05). These results support these twohypotheses.3

Given two different types of interaction effect,one of which was unexpected, we examined othermarginally significant interaction effects in purelypost hoc analyses. The two marginally significant

betas associated with number-based U.S. work ex-perience (for general and work adjustment) hadslopes similar to those found for number-basedU.S. travel experience, which provides additional

corroborating evidence for this type of interactioneffect. On the other hand, the interaction effect fornumber-based general travel experience moreclosely resembled the interaction effect for length-

based prior international experience. Given the ex-ploratory nature and marginally significant effectsof these interactions, we have to be very tentative in

3 To conserve space, we do not report the table show-ing these results. However, it is available per request tothe first author.

FIGURE 2Interaction Plots for the Moderating Effect of Previous International Experience on Adjustment




drawing any kind of conclusion but, at a minimum,there appear to be two different types of interactioneffect that exist when different types of experiencemeasures are used.

DISCUSSION

The main objective of this study was to examine

the influence of current assignment tenure and pre-vious international experience on expatriates’cross-cultural adjustment by integrating several dif-ferent streams of research. To provide the theoret-ical thrust for examining the experience constructs,we drew from the work-family conflict literature todistinguish work and nonwork domains for expa-triate adjustment and examined the moderating ef-fects of prior international experience. We also in-tegrated and extended findings from research onwork experience (e.g., Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998), time(e.g., Goodman et al., 2001), cross-cultural psychol-

ogy (e.g., Hofstede, 1980), and expatriate adjust-ment (e.g., Selmer, 2002) to distinguish betweencurrent and past experience, and between travel,work, and culture-specific travel and work experi-ence to help better understand how qualitative as-pects of international experience affect expatriateadjustment and intentions to return home early.The results of the present study indicated that ex-perience matters in distinct and complex ways. Thecurrent findings partly resolve some of the incon-sistency associated with previous empirical studieson international experience in that previous inter-national experience appeared to act more as a mod-erator rather than as a direct (main effect) variable,

but the results also raise additional research ques-tions that need to be explored further.

First, the findings regarding the moderating ef-fects of previous international experience showedthe impact of prior international experience to besubstantially more complicated than it has gener-ally been considered to be. Consistently with pre-vious empirical studies, the simple correlation in-dicated a generally positive but weak association

between previous international experience andcross-cultural adjustment. However, the results of

this study support the view that prior internationalexperience acts as a moderator rather than as anantecedent to expatriates’ cross-cultural adjust-ment. More specifically, our variables representingprior culture-specific international (i.e., U.S.) expe-rience had consistently significant moderating ef-fects on the relationship between current assign-ment tenure and general adjustment, but the samevariables did not have any meaningful moderatingeffects on work adjustment. On the other hand,culture-general, prior international work experi-ence was a significant moderator of the relationship

between current assignment tenure and work ad-justment. In fact, it was the only significant mod-erator of work adjustment.

Perhaps temporal sequencing of adjustment di-mensions (Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001) oc-curs in such a way that the moderating effects of culture-specific international experience indirectly

influence work adjustment through the impact of these experiences on general adjustment. Incorpo-rating the time perspective (cf. Ancona et al., 2001;Goodman et al., 2001) in examining the processesof adjustment should facilitate understanding thisaspect. It may also be the case that the scale weused to measure work adjustment, although it is anestablished one, does not fully encompass the con-struct space that it purports to assess, and thisdeficiency resulted in these nonsignificant find-ings. Therefore, additional research that replicatesand/or extends our findings is definitely needed to

uncover the influence of experiences on cross-cul-tural adjustment.The specific relationships that the different types

of prior international experience had with adjust-ment may become clearer when these results arerecast from a domain-specific and knowledge trans-fer perspective. Initially, we considered generaland work adjustment as representing different as-pects of national culture. However, it may be thatthe work adjustment dimension is tapping a dis-tinct organizational (work) culture. When two do-mains are recast in this light (that is, as work versusnational culture domains), taking a knowledgetransfer perspective may permit additional insightinto the domain specificity of prior internationalexperience.4 As such, the notion of near (or “on-line”) versus far (memory-based) transfer (e.g., Bar-nett & Ceci, 2002; Phye, 1990) is useful for uncov-ering the different effects of current and priorinternational experience. With near transfer (thatis, current assignment experience and culture-spe-cific experience), knowledge is more likely to trans-fer across different domains (Barnett & Ceci, 2002).On the other hand, when transfer is required tooccur across substantially different contexts (in a

different culture or work context or after substan-tial time has elapsed), the transfer, if it occurs,tends to be domain specific (cf. Klaczynski, 1993;Phye, 1990).

Second, we found that the interaction effects dif-fered depending on the measurement mode being

4 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for sug-gesting this perspective, which helped us substantially indelineating the underlying effects of experience on ad-justment.




used. The interaction figures for the length-basedmeasures of prior international experience illus-trate the anticipated effect. Contrary to expectation,the number-based measure of prior internationalexperience exhibited moderating effects, wherebycurrent assignment tenure was more important toexpatriates with higher numbers of prior interna-

tional experiences than it was for those with fewer.Although unexpected, these patterns of resultsdemonstrate discriminant validity for the different“operationalizations” of the international experi-ence concepts and highlight the importance of in-cluding multiple measures of experience to en-hance understanding of these variables’ impacts oncross-cultural adjustment.

Third, we found current assignment tenure tohave significant relationships with expatriates’general and work adjustment. These findings areconsistent with a growing body of research (e.g.,

Black & Gregersen, 1991a; Shaffer et al., 1999) andhighlight the importance of current experience andadopting a time perspective for understanding ex-patriate adjustment. However, the variance ex-plained in adjustment by current assignment ten-ure was 5 percent for general and 7 percent forwork adjustment, low values that underscore thatassignment tenure is only one of many importantvariables that influence expatriates’ cross-culturaladjustment. Finally, we also found both generaland work adjustment to be negatively related toexpatriates’ early return intentions, findings under-lining the importance of cross-cultural adjustmentfor expatriate’s behavioral intentions.

Limitations

Of course, the results of this study must beviewed in light of its limitations. First, given ourcross-sectional design, we cannot infer causality.Although our independent variables specificallyreferred to discrete events that had happened in thepast, longitudinal examination where previous ex-perience variables are measured prior to departureto a host country would be particularly valuable.

Current assignment tenure and cross-cultural ad-justment may also have a reciprocal relationship,whereby staying longer in the current assignmentleads to better adjustment, which, in turn, leads toa longer stay.5 Although our cross-sectional data donot allow for testing this possibility directly, ithighlights the importance of examining adjustment

from a dynamic, process-oriented perspective if un-derstanding of adjustment processes is to proceedfurther. In addition, expatriates’ general adjustmentand work adjustments are likely to affect each otherreciprocally in such a way that being adjusted tothe general environment spills over to the workdomain to improve adjustment, and vice versa. Pre-

vious research has explored directionality amongadjustment dimensions (Kraimer et al., 2001;Takeuchi, Yun, & Russell, 2002), but no definiteconclusion can be drawn yet. For practical reasons,understanding causality among adjustment dimen-sions is important so that firms can assist expatri-ates and/or their families to adjust to one dimen-sion first; such adjustment might reduce thepotential for premature return or poor performance,for example. Therefore, causal direction and recip-rocal relations between current assignment tenureand adjustment, and among adjustment dimen-

sions, need to be investigated with longitudinaldata in the future.Another limitation may be potential threats of

common method or same-respondent biases. In or-der to mitigate these concerns, we used a phoneinterview method to collect work adjustment re-sponses from the superiors, who were not thesource of other data. We also assessed the reliabil-ity of spousal assessment of expatriates’ generaladjustment and the convergent validity of theseresponses with expatriate ratings. Third, the resultsmay have suffered from insufficient power to detectsignificant interaction effects. Although the analy-ses met the recommended ratio of 10 (responses) to1 (variable), moderated regression analysis requiressubstantially more power to detect significance(Stone & Hollenbeck, 1994). Hence, our investiga-tion may not have been able to detect other moder-ating effects of previous international experience.Therefore, the current findings have to be repli-cated before any definite conclusions can be drawnconcerning the relationships between current andpast experience and adjustment.

Fourth, the present investigation was limited toexperience-related variables, although more com-

prehensive models of expatriate adjustment haveincluded a wide variety of factors that have beenfound to affect adjustment (e.g., Black et al., 1991;McEvoy & Parker, 1995; Shaffer & Harrison, 1998).We do not argue that experience-related variablesare the only factors that are of import. However, asAycan and Kanungo (1997) noted, not enough at-tention has been paid to explicating the process of adjustment, and it was our primary objective in thepresent study to integrate the expatriate adjust-ment, work experience, time, and work-family con-flict literatures. Therefore, future research may ben-

5 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for sug-gesting these possibilities, which are important issues inthe cross-cultural adjustment literature.




efit by integrating even more theories than we haveapplied here into a framework.

Our results may have been an artifact of the spe-cific sample and experience measures that we used.It may be argued that Japanese expatriates possessmore international experience in the United Statesthan do expatriates from other nations, which may

limit the generalizability of the present findings toother expatriate samples (such as Western expatri-ates in Southeast Asia). However, as Selmer’s(2002) study of Western expatriates in Hong Kongindicated, our length-based measure of prior inter-national work experience moderated the relation-ship between current assignment tenure and workadjustment, providing some empirical support forthe generalizability of our findings. Future researchshould examine this issue, using different samples.

In addition, we used length- and number-basedmeasures of previous international experience not

only in the work domain but also in a nonworkdomain (i.e., travel) and a culture-specific (i.e.,U.S.) domain to test our integrative models (ratherthan the different dimensions of work experienceproposed by Tesluk and Jacobs (1998), to contrib-ute to theory on both expatriate adjustment andwork experience. However, an additional possibil-ity is that the effects of prior international experi-ence differ when different aspects of experience,such as challenge and density (see Tesluk & Jacobs,1998), are examined. Thus, future research shouldexamine different aspects of experience and theireffects on adjustment and other variables of interest.

Implications for Research and Practice

Despite these limitations, our study has a numberof research implications. One significant implica-tion may be that the current investigation opens upa new direction for expatriate adjustment researchwith regard to experience. Although increasing at-tention has been provided to other variables suchas personality (Caligiuri, 2000) and spouse-expatri-ate interaction (e.g., Caligiuri, Hyland, Joshi, &Bross, 1998), experience has been a neglected con-

cept that may be important in influencing expatri-ate adjustment and other organization-related is-sues (turnover, promotion, career advancement,knowledge management, training, and so forth).Moreover, the effects of other aspects of experience,such as job and organizational tenure, may be ex-amined within international assignment contextsin addition to current assignment tenure and/orprior international experiences. In addition, from atime perspective, expatriates’ knowledge of the ex-act length of their current assignments might alsomoderate the relationships between adjustment

and early return intentions. This moderation might be such that the level of adjustment does not haveany bearing on early return intentions when expa-triates realize that their assignments will be oversoon, but it does affect these intentions for thosewho are just starting their assignments.

Another avenue for future research might be to

inspect antecedent variables for accumulating in-ternational experience, such as personality (e.g.,openness to experience) and individual character-istics (e.g., parent’s ethnic background, network of friends with different cultural backgrounds, andnationality of significant others), and to link thesevariables to individual employees’ development of international experience. Relatedly, scholars couldexamine organizational characteristics that influ-ence the development of international experience.For example, a headquarters or organizational cli-mate that values international experience may lead

to certain human resource management practicessuch as international job rotation and ultimatelyimpact firm-level outcomes (cf. Daily et al., 2000).Nonwork experience may be incorporated into therelevant research in general as another type of ex-perience that may interact with work experience toinfluence important variables such as work moti-vation, work knowledge and skills, and work-re-lated attitudes (cf. Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Finally,spouses’ previous international experience maycross over to affect expatriates’ sociocultural ad-justment (Takeuchi, Yun, & Tesluk, 2002). In par-ticular, when an expatriate has little previous in-ternational experience, a spouse with substantialprevious international experience can be morehelpful. In addition, the spouse can be more help-ful at the early stage of the assignment, when theexpatriate may encounter more difficulty.

This study has several practical implications aswell. First, an implication with regard to employeeselection for international assignments may be thatfirms base selections on the nature of the task thatneeds to be accomplished. For example, if an inter-national assignment requires expatriates to be pro-ductive from the onset, it may be better to select

employees with a greater accumulation of work-related international experience. In contrast, if firms are selecting employees into international as-signments for more developmental purposes, itmay be better to identify those with less interna-tional experience to provide opportunities for theexpatriates to accumulate global managementknowledge, skills, and abilities. Providing interna-tional assignment opportunities to less senior em-ployees may be an important means of developingfuture leaders who would be effective in the globalarena. Relatedly, host companies may request em-




ployees with more or less international experienceto be sent from parent companies, depending onthe situations they face and on what they expectfrom those situations.

In conclusion, the present research takes a signif-icant step forward and sheds some interesting lighton the concept of international experience and its

relationships with expatriate adjustment. At thesame time, it underscores the need for more empir-ical work in this area.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. 1997. International dimensions of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: South-West-ern College Publishing.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. 2001.Taking time to integrate temporal research. Acad-emy of Management Review , 26: 512–529.

Aycan, Z., & Canungo, R. N. 1997. Current issues andfuture challenges in expatriate management. In Z.Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to employee man-agement (Expatriate management: Theory and re-search), vol. 4: 245–260. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York: Freeman.

Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. 2002. When and where do weapply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer.

Psychological Bulletin, 128: 612–637.

Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C.2002. Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework.

Academy of Management Review, 27: 204–221.

Black, J. S. 1988. Work role transitions: A study of Amer-ican expatriate managers in Japan. Journal of Inter-

national Business Studies, 19: 277–294.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. 1991a. Antecedents tocross-cultural adjustment for expatriates in PacificRim assignments. Human Relations, 44: 497–515.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. 1991b. The other half of the picture: Antecedents of spouse cross-cultural ad-

justment. Journal of International Business Stud- ies, 22: 461–477.

Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. 1991. Towarda comprehensive model of international adjustment:An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives.

Academy of Management Review , 16: 291–317.

Black, J. S., & Stephens, G. K. 1989. The influence of thespouse on American expatriate adjustment and in-tent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments.

Journal of Management, 15: 529–544.

Caligiuri, P. M. 2000. The big five personality character-istics as predictors of expatriate’s desire to terminate

the assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53: 67–88.

Caligiuri, P. M., Hyland, M. A. M., Joshi, A., & Bross,A. S. 1998. Testing a theoretical model for examiningthe relationship between family adjustment and ex-patriates’ work adjustment. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 83: 598–614.

Carpenter, M. A., Sanders, W. G., & Gregersen, H. B.2001. Bundling human capital with organizationalcontext: The impact of international experience onmultinational firm performance and CEO pay. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 44: 493–511.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regres-sion/correlation analysis for the behavioral sci-ence (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, D. R. 2000. Internationalexperience in the executive suite: The path to prosper-ity? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 515–523.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. 1998. Working knowl-

edge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Dowling, P. J., Welch, D. E., & Schuler, R. S. 1999. Inter- national human resource management: Managing people in a multinational context (3rd ed.). Cincin-nati: South-Western College Publishing.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanismslinking work and family: Clarifying the relationship

between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25: 178–199.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1984. Social cognition. Read-ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. 1992. Ante-cedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Test-ing a mode of the work-family interface. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 77: 65–78.

Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., Ancona, D. G., & Tush-man, M. L. 2001. Introduction. Academy of Man-agement Review , 26: 507–511.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985. Sources and con-flict between work and family roles. Academy of

Management Review, 10: 76– 88.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Hall, E. T. 1976. Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.

Hinds, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. 2001. Bothered byabstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledgetransfer and subsequent novice performance. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1232–1243.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: Interna-tional differences in work-related values (abridgededition, volume 5). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. 1990. Stress in organizations.In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd




ed.), vol. 3: 571– 650. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-chologist Press.

Kanungo, R. N., & Misra, S. 1992. Managerial resource-fulness: A reconceptualization of management skills.

Human Relations, 45: 1311–1332.

Klaczynski, P. A. 1993. Reasoning schema effects onadolescent rule acquisition and transfer. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 85: 679–692.

Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. 2001.Sources of support and expatriate performance: Themediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel

Psychology, 54: 71–100.

Major, V. S., Klein, K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. 2002. Work time,work interference with family, and psychological dis-tress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 427–436.

McEvoy, G. M., & Parker, B. 1995. Expatriate adjustment:Causes and consequences. In J. Selmer (Ed.), Expa-triate management: New ideas for international business: 97–114. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Mervosh, E. M., & McClenahen, J. S. 1997. The care andfeeding of expats. Industry Week, 246(22): 68–72.

Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. M. 1993. Initial examination of a model of intercultural adjustment. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17: 355–379.

Phye, G. D. 1989. Schemata training and transfer of anintellectual skill. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 81: 347–352.

Phye, G. D. 1990. Inductive problem solving: Schemainducement and memory-based transfer. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 82: 826–831.

Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. 1995. The

relationship between work experience and job per-formance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review.

Personnel Psychology, 48: 887–910.

Sambharya, R. B. 1996. Foreign experience of top man-agement teams and international diversificationstrategies of U.S. multinational corporations. Strate-

gic Management Journal, 17: 739–746.

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. 1986.Impact of job experience and ability on job knowl-edge, work sample performance, and supervisoryratings of job performance. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 71: 432–439.

Selmer, J. 2002. Practice makes perfect? Internationalexperience and expatriate adjustment. Management International Review, 42: 71–87.

Shaffer, M. A., & Harrison, D. A. 1998. Expatriates’ psy-chological withdrawal from international assign-ments: Work, non-work, and family influences. Per-sonnel Psychology, 51: 87–118.

Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., & Gilley, K. M. 1999.Dimensions, determinants, and differences in theexpatriate adjustment process. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies, 30: 557–582.

Spreitzer, G. M., & McCall, M. W. 1997. Early identifica-tion of international executive potential. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 82: 6–29.

Stone, E. F., & Hollenbeck, J. R. 1994. Relative power of moderated regression and the comparison of subgroupcorrelation coefficients for detecting moderating ef-fects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 354–359.

Takeuchi, R., Yun, S., & Russell, J. E. A. 2002. Anteced-ents and consequences of the perceived adjustmentof Japanese expatriates in the USA. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 13:1224–1244.

Takeuchi, R., Yun, S., & Tesluk, P. E. 2002. An examinationof crossover and spillover effects of spousal and expa-triate cross-cultural adjustment on expatriate out-comes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 655–666.

Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. 1998. Toward an integratedmodel of work experience. Personnel Psychology,51: 321–355.

Riki Takeuchi (mnrikitust.hk) is an assistant professor inthe Department of Management of Organizations at theSchool of Business and Management, Hong Kong Univer-sity of Science & Technology. He received his Ph.D. fromthe Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland at College Park. His research interests includeexpatriate adjustment and international human resourcemanagement, strategic human resource management, or-ganizational justice, and organizational citizenship be-haviors.

Paul E. Tesluk is an associate professor of managementand organization and the associate director of the Centerfor Human Capital, Innovation & Technology at the Rob-ert H. Smith School of Business, University of Marylandat College Park. His research interests are focused onknowledge management in teams, organizational innova-tion, and work experience and leadership development.

Seokhwa Yun is an assistant professor in the Departmentof Management at the Montclair State University. Hereceived his Ph.D. from the Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland at College Park. Hisresearch areas include leadership, citizenship behav-iors, teams, expatriation issues, and knowledge man-agement.

David P. Lepak is an assistant professor in the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers, the StateUniversity of New Jersey. He received his Ph.D. at Penn-sylvania State University. His current research interestsinclude the strategic management of human capital, hu-man resources architecture, and managing the contin-gency workforce for sustainable advantage.


amj international experience

Documents